Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Captain Risky

Majority find Trump embarrassing

283 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

acidhead
On 26/02/2017 at 5:33 AM, Avatar Samantha Ai said:

Will any Trump supporters be willing to take up the fallen mantle and tackle these questions. I was kind of wanting to see 3.

Yes.. let's begin with #1... again.

As I previously noted on post #60

All Dodd-Frank did was, through the force of GOV, create larger too-big-to-fails and pushed out any smaller competitors..... Crony-Capitalsm.  It's stifled borrowing and slowed growth among the middle class folks.  Let's not forget it was another GOV program, Freddie and Fanny, that created the housing bubble.  All the predatory investment banks did was follow the guidelines the GOV laid out by encouraging borrowing to individuals clearly unable to pay. 

*****

Also I'll add... repealing an Act doesn't necessarily mean throwing the whole piece of legislation away... just like Obama care is under review.  Trump has directed the Secretary of the Treasury to conduct a full review of the burdensome regulations required by the Dodd-Frank Act. 

Nobody knows what will be repealed and what will remain.  It's too early to speculate on what will be voted on.

What is good is it is being considered.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clarakore
9 minutes ago, acidhead said:

Yes.. let's begin with #1... again.

As I previously noted on post #60

All Dodd-Frank did was, through the force of GOV, create larger too-big-to-fails and pushed out any smaller competitors..... Crony-Capitalsm.  It's stifled borrowing and slowed growth among the middle class folks.  Let's not forget it was another GOV program, Freddie and Fanny, that created the housing bubble.  All the predatory investment banks did was follow the guidelines the GOV laid out by encouraging borrowing to individuals clearly unable to pay. 

*****

Also I'll add... repealing an Act doesn't necessarily mean throwing the whole piece of legislation away... just like Obama care is under review.  Trump has directed the Secretary of the Treasury to conduct a full review of the burdensome regulations required by the Dodd-Frank Act. 

Nobody knows what will be repealed and what will remain.  It's too early to speculate on what will be voted on.

What is good is it is being considered.

 

I know my limitations and don't participate in economic discussions. I did not make the post you would want to respond to if you are interested in that sort of thing. Why not hit them up or if you are up to a challenge go find Yam.

I was merely commenting on the troll repellant quality of that post.

If you want answer 2 now. I still kind of want to see 3. Your response was duplicated from before but still interesting again.

Edited by Avatar Samantha Ai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kismit

This reason is concerning for everyone.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/02/donald-trump-plans-to-abolish-environmental-protection-agency

And I don't know about you, but I do find the fact that a world leader of any kind tells his people which news source to watch, concerning.

And when it comes to Rupert Murdoch media I am personally just a little iffy about it.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
On ‎25‎/‎02‎/‎2017 at 4:59 AM, seeder said:

 

Im claiming the only poll that matters is the one which made him the President....or did you miss that HUGE fact?

The only poll that matters is the election? You mean the one where it showed the majority of voters were against him? Cool.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seeder
9 minutes ago, Setton said:

The only poll that matters is the election? You mean the one where it showed the majority of voters were against him? Cool.

 

why did he win then?

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
13 minutes ago, seeder said:

 

why did he win then?

 

Because the presidential election is not a popular vote. Just like how here the government is decided by the number of MPs elected rather than the total number of votes.

But, if you're going to treat it as a poll, it shows he was the less popular.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

The EPA thing does concern me. The fact that Trump is angry with certain news outlets, not so much. The ones he's really angry with are indeed owned by the opposition and have been anything but fair and objective.

What I'm hoping is that President Trump will listen to all sides regarding various issues. The over regulation that we currently have is ridiculous but one should not 'throw out the baby with the bath water' so to speak. We still need environmental protections and regulations that serve to protect us and our country.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidMongoose
9 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

I prefer:

As Librarians, we seek a world of libraries; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own reading and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her quiet time because of the nattering of others.

We believe that respect for individual shushes is the essential precondition for a quiet and peaceful world, that noise and chatter must be banished from human relationships, and that only through hush can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that involved the Dewey Decimal System and welcome the diversity that it brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow the Dewey Decimal System, without interference from government or any authoritarian power beyond that of the head librarian.

In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.

These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set hush in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these shushes.

There are the 'ideal people' we like to pretend exist but unless we take a pragmatic approach to running society then we get a toxic mess all over the place. For example we can pretend there's a good person just waiting to get out from each of us (if only society was more free and equal) or we can accept the truth that people with anti-social personality disorder have bad genetics. Then adjust policy social accordingly.

Every ideology, every approach to government, and every form of government, has its pros and cons. But the proponents of each usually lack any ability to see what is wrong with theirs. Trump was elected by people to correct the damage the left has done.

Edited by RabidMongoose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidMongoose
47 minutes ago, Lilly said:

The EPA thing does concern me. The fact that Trump is angry with certain news outlets, not so much. The ones he's really angry with are indeed owned by the opposition and have been anything but fair and objective.

What I'm hoping is that President Trump will listen to all sides regarding various issues. The over regulation that we currently have is ridiculous but one should not 'throw out the baby with the bath water' so to speak. We still need environmental protections and regulations that serve to protect us and our country.

I dont think regulation is needed as simply labelling what they are doing is working well enough.

All Trump should do is keep pointing out that people should question what they read and the biases of the information source might be.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77

Trump is absolutely embarrassing. He was before he did anything in office and it has nothing to do with politics.  The guy is classless , offensive , gross and entitled.

Now all of the above could have been overlooked if he was an effective leader. However  the guy has been a shitshow. Whether you agree with the immigration ban or not you have to admit the way it was instituted was a nightmare.

Then after all the hubballoo about the immigration ban keeping us safe from terror Trump goes and buddies up with Saudi Arabia who of course isnt on the ban list despite providing us with 9/11.

Then the guy signs an executive order allowing coal mines to dump their waste in streams. That in and of itself makes us look like a nation of ignorant savages. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkHunter
27 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Trump is absolutely embarrassing. He was before he did anything in office and it has nothing to do with politics.  The guy is classless , offensive , gross and entitled.

Now all of the above could have been overlooked if he was an effective leader. However  the guy has been a shitshow. Whether you agree with the immigration ban or not you have to admit the way it was instituted was a nightmare.

Then after all the hubballoo about the immigration ban keeping us safe from terror Trump goes and buddies up with Saudi Arabia who of course isnt on the ban list despite providing us with 9/11.

Then the guy signs an executive order allowing coal mines to dump their waste in streams. That in and of itself makes us look like a nation of ignorant savages. 

It doesn't allow coal miners to dump their waste in streams, I know the media reports it as such but that is not what the actual regulation was about.  What the regulation is actually about is more or less stopping a type of mining by making it ridiculously expensive and time consuming to do.

The type of coal mining it largely tries to stop is mountaintop removal mining, which is exactly what it sounds like, a mining method where the very top of a mountain is removed so the coal underneath can easily and safely be mined.  Normally what this mining practice did was just push the rock and dirt that made up the top of the mountain into the valley right beside the mountain, which depending on how much of the top they have to remove and how deep the valley is may partially or completely fill up the valley.

Right or wrong, pushing rock and dirt into a valley, that may or may not have a stream, is drastically different then how it is reported with mines being allowed to dump waste directly into a stream.  Technically they are dumping waste as the dirt and rock is more or less viewed as a waste product but it's not like they are dumping chemicals or slurry into streams.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
1 minute ago, DarkHunter said:

It doesn't allow coal miners to dump their waste in streams, I know the media reports it as such but that is not what the actual regulation was about.  What the regulation is actually about is more or less stopping a type of mining by making it ridiculously expensive and time consuming to do.

The type of coal mining it largely tries to stop is mountaintop removal mining, which is exactly what it sounds like, a mining method where the very top of a mountain is removed so the coal underneath can easily and safely be mined.  Normally what this mining practice did was just push the rock and dirt that made up the top of the mountain into the valley right beside the mountain, which depending on how much of the top they have to remove and how deep the valley is may partially or completely fill up the valley.

Right or wrong, pushing rock and dirt into a valley, that may or may not have a stream, is drastically different then how it is reported with mines being allowed to dump waste directly into a stream.  Technically they are dumping waste as the dirt and rock is more or less viewed as a waste product but it's not like they are dumping chemicals or slurry into streams.

Ill confess that once you get past the basics most of this stuff is out of my wheel house if not just over my head but I have heard the argument you are making before and found this as a rebuttal. Why You Need to be Outraged About the Decision to Allow Coal Debris Dumping in Streams

So what did The Stream Protection Rule actually do? The legislations went into effect in 2016 and was designed to protect over 6,000 miles of rivers and streams as well as large swaths of forest in coal mining regions.  It specifically targeted mountain top removal mining, which is where miners will basically blow up a mountain and then sift through the rubble for coal. The debris is often dumped in the surrounding valleys.

Appalachian Voices, an environmental group, believes that the industrial waste from this process has choked out over 2,o00 streams already. The same study also found that this debris was getting into the water supply of the surrounding towns and could have potentially deadly consequences. According to this report, studies have associated mountaintop removal and other forms of coal mining in Appalachia with increased rates of chronic respiratory and kidney disease, deaths from cardiopulmonary disease, lung cancer, hypertension, and low birth weights in babies. What’s perhaps more shocking is this: “Life expectancy for both men and women actually declined between 1997 and 2007 in Appalachian counties with the most strip mining, even as life expectancy in the U.S. as a whole increased by more than a year. In 2007, life expectancy in the five Appalachian counties with the most strip mining was comparable to that in developing countries like Iran, Syria, El Salvador, and Vietnam.”

Now I cant vouch for the veracity of the studies linked there but I mean just in general damaging streams and the ecosystems dependent upon them seems like a bad idea to me regardless of to what level. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clarakore
1 hour ago, DarkHunter said:

It doesn't allow coal miners to dump their waste in streams, I know the media reports it as such but that is not what the actual regulation was about.  What the regulation is actually about is more or less stopping a type of mining by making it ridiculously expensive and time consuming to do.

The type of coal mining it largely tries to stop is mountaintop removal mining, which is exactly what it sounds like, a mining method where the very top of a mountain is removed so the coal underneath can easily and safely be mined.  Normally what this mining practice did was just push the rock and dirt that made up the top of the mountain into the valley right beside the mountain, which depending on how much of the top they have to remove and how deep the valley is may partially or completely fill up the valley.

Right or wrong, pushing rock and dirt into a valley, that may or may not have a stream, is drastically different then how it is reported with mines being allowed to dump waste directly into a stream.  Technically they are dumping waste as the dirt and rock is more or less viewed as a waste product but it's not like they are dumping chemicals or slurry into streams.

Won't it seep into the water table regardless. Aquifers usually are banded between high places before contouring into the lowlands.

This analogy of yours presents streams as thin lines but they are like wells connected to the aquifers.

So they won't toss their coal directly into my well will be the shill claim but it will still be contaminated which is what they will want us to ignore. 

Water will be the next generation social conflict hotspot as war for oil has been. We have fought too many battles for decades over our aquifer here but it is only going to get bigger and bigger of an issue.

Please. Clean energy or get out!

We have already hit the midpoint where clean energy is cheaper than coal. Those communities need to transition rather than drag us down with their need for jobs that hurt us more overall to help a few.

 

Edited by Avatar Samantha Ai
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
2 hours ago, Lilly said:

The EPA thing does concern me. The fact that Trump is angry with certain news outlets, not so much. The ones he's really angry with are indeed owned by the opposition and have been anything but fair and objective.

And the ones he's not angry with are owned by his supporters and have been anything but fair and objective.  If the 'opposition media' had been fair and objective, they would have done what exactly?  What would you like them to not report?  

This isn't happening in a vacuum, this isn't an 'all things being equal' situation, there's a lot of context.  If nothing else we have a President who spews out simple falsehoods at a pace never matched by presidents in our last few decades, assigns unqualified people to his cabinet positions, responds to all criticisms with ad hominems, etc.    All presidents have been upset at criticism with certain news outlets, not all of them have behaved as juvenile as Trump in response to it, nor has any modern president done (or not done) so much to earn it one month into office.

We've got the FBI investigating Russian interference in the election, he tries to politicize the FBI and get them to make a statement to publicly knock down reports of connections between his team and Russians, he sloppily tries to roll out an unlawful travel ban, and is responsible for a failed SEAL raid that killed one of them (in our public discourse we don't tend to care too much about civilian deaths so I won't bother to go into them).  The first one of those may have nothing ultimately to do with Trump, but is definitely a big deal that some Repubs weren't really even interested in investigating.  The fact that there is an investigation of connections between Russian and Trump's team is extremely newsworthy, even if there isn't anything to it, but regardless trying to politicize FBI statements should raise some red flags and is certainly legitimate grounds for criticism.  The last two are squarely failures that are on Trump.  That's within one month, and are just the lowlights that immediately come to mind.  I'd argue we need to have a lot of unfair and unobjective reporting to even merit a mention next to those, so I guess I'm not sure what you are specifically referring to.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kismit
17 hours ago, Lilly said:

The EPA thing does concern me. The fact that Trump is angry with certain news outlets, not so much. The ones he's really angry with are indeed owned by the opposition and have been anything but fair and objective.

What I'm hoping is that President Trump will listen to all sides regarding various issues. The over regulation that we currently have is ridiculous but one should not 'throw out the baby with the bath water' so to speak. We still need environmental protections and regulations that serve to protect us and our country.

What worries me about the epa things is that it appears to be a way to clear the road for unregulated industrialization. A way to cut red tape and increased profits for big business. On the surface a good idea, but I doubt those profits will benefit anyone lower down the ladder than CEO.

II have seen CT posters claims that Trump has stopped a Globalist government. And yet all I can see is big business getting bigger and workers getting less. It's money that greased palms and makes the world turn.

All I see coming is an unregulated globalist elite who don't have to worry about how their actions effect others. A return to Victorian industry on a modern scale.

Edited by Kismit
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kismit

And as for the media thing. I would rather see people encouraged to check sources and judge bias than be told what to watch. And during his press conferences he chooses who to respond to. He effectively created his own bias. It's not unbalanced and will most likely cause issues down the track for the public.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther
On February 24, 2017 at 10:47 PM, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

My gripe, other than the whole sounding more and more like a dangerous demagogue, is he can't deliver seques, he has all the timing of a Welk. 

Lawrence had great timing. "A one, and a two,...."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther
On February 24, 2017 at 11:59 PM, seeder said:

 

Im claiming the only poll that matters is the one which made him the President....or did you miss that HUGE fact?

All the rest of the anti Trump stuff is from hysterical people who havent got any real reason to be against him, except for the reason, that others are against him

To be fair, much of the animosity and hostility stem from the street fights that passed for political debates when both Clinton and Trump exchanged cheap shots and low blows. Many of Trump's comments are/were very embarrassing. It's an observation that's based on common sense just like the observation that Clinton is the epitome of dishonesty. It's obvious that a lot of Trump detractors won't give him a nanoparticle of a chance, but it's okay to call an embarrassing spade an embarrassing spade.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther
On February 24, 2017 at 11:43 PM, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Golden showers?

That's such a melodic Beatles-esque name for such a gross sickening perversion. "Golden showers fill your eyes."

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther
On February 25, 2017 at 0:15 AM, Likely Guy said:

Yeah, see my edited post. We cross posted and while I edited, you posted again.

It sometimes seems like this forum is haunted by ghosts who make us all look like derps. It's like one long "Who's on first?" routine.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkHunter
11 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Ill confess that once you get past the basics most of this stuff is out of my wheel house if not just over my head but I have heard the argument you are making before and found this as a rebuttal. Why You Need to be Outraged About the Decision to Allow Coal Debris Dumping in Streams

So what did The Stream Protection Rule actually do? The legislations went into effect in 2016 and was designed to protect over 6,000 miles of rivers and streams as well as large swaths of forest in coal mining regions.  It specifically targeted mountain top removal mining, which is where miners will basically blow up a mountain and then sift through the rubble for coal. The debris is often dumped in the surrounding valleys.

Appalachian Voices, an environmental group, believes that the industrial waste from this process has choked out over 2,o00 streams already. The same study also found that this debris was getting into the water supply of the surrounding towns and could have potentially deadly consequences. According to this report, studies have associated mountaintop removal and other forms of coal mining in Appalachia with increased rates of chronic respiratory and kidney disease, deaths from cardiopulmonary disease, lung cancer, hypertension, and low birth weights in babies. What’s perhaps more shocking is this: “Life expectancy for both men and women actually declined between 1997 and 2007 in Appalachian counties with the most strip mining, even as life expectancy in the U.S. as a whole increased by more than a year. In 2007, life expectancy in the five Appalachian counties with the most strip mining was comparable to that in developing countries like Iran, Syria, El Salvador, and Vietnam.”

Now I cant vouch for the veracity of the studies linked there but I mean just in general damaging streams and the ecosystems dependent upon them seems like a bad idea to me regardless of to what level. 

Normally I don't try to go after the source but in this case Appalachian Voices is far from a non biased source of this matter.  They state multiple times on their site how they are focused on reducing coal's impact in the region and how they want to replace it with cleaner energy.  Anything that is anti-coal they are going to drastically over state the impact of.  Even in that they talk about industrial waste from the process but the process isn't producing what most people think of as industrial waste.  They aren't dumping various chemical commands in the streams they are literally just pushing rocks and dirt, and inevitably small amounts of coal into valleys, its not like they are dumping sulfuric acid by the barrel into streams.    

As for the life expectancy I can tell you right now the drop in life expectancy is not from run off from coal mines.  The drop with life expectancy has more to due with two main factors, the first is that when the majority of the coal mines and the steel industry shut down it more or less completely killed the economy of the entire region.  Appalachia, and coal country in general, is basically poor now and simply can't afford good medical care, there is basically no industry or economy really left in most of the region except for small family farms which are barely making it by.  The second reason, which is connected to the first is the explosion of drugs in the region, where I'm from is often called the heroin capital of the United States due to the drastically higher then average use of heroin in the population, where I'm from you can normally buy heroin cheaper then weed.  Due to the bad economy and the lack of industry the housing here is dirt cheap which causes drug addicts from across the nation to move in since they can pay very little for housing and can get their drugs cheaply.

But the point is the damage being done is no where near the level this group is making it out to be.  The only real damage is really in changing how run off from the mountains and hills gets to the rivers in the area, its still getting to the rivers but its going to be taking new routes.  Its not like its at the height of the steel industry when they were dumping so many chemicals in the rivers that they would spontaneously catch on fire for days at a time.   

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
10 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

And the ones he's not angry with are owned by his supporters and have been anything but fair and objective.  If the 'opposition media' had been fair and objective, they would have done what exactly?  What would you like them to not report?  

 

I'd like them not to report in this manner: https://news.grabien.com/story-brzezinski-our-job-control-exactly-what-people-think

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkHunter
11 hours ago, Avatar Samantha Ai said:

Won't it seep into the water table regardless. Aquifers usually are banded between high places before contouring into the lowlands.

This analogy of yours presents streams as thin lines but they are like wells connected to the aquifers.

So they won't toss their coal directly into my well will be the shill claim but it will still be contaminated which is what they will want us to ignore. 

Water will be the next generation social conflict hotspot as war for oil has been. We have fought too many battles for decades over our aquifer here but it is only going to get bigger and bigger of an issue.

Please. Clean energy or get out!

We have already hit the midpoint where clean energy is cheaper than coal. Those communities need to transition rather than drag us down with their need for jobs that hurt us more overall to help a few.

 

The water will still seep into the water table regardless but what you are failing to take into account is the natural geography of the region.  The water flowing into the aquifers is already flowing through large quantities of coal underground.  The amount of coal in Appalachia is massive, as in hard to imagine massive.  This mountain top removing mining method is only removing the very tip of what is an otherwise gigantic coal iceberg.  From what I understand of the coal situation in much of Appalachia that underneath the mountains, but above the aquifers are three massive coal seams that cover pretty much the entire region.  This water you are afraid of being contaminated by coal is already flowing through about three separate coal seams on average before even getting into the aquifer.

Even then coal isn't going to contaminate water anymore then a rock contaminates water.  Coal does have elements in it such an sulfur and mercury in low amounts but until burnt they are locked in massively long and complex hydrocarbon chains and have absolutely zero chance of leaching into the water.  Fine coal particles you wouldn't want to drink, but that always applies to fine particles of dirt and various stones also that are already present in the water supply anyway as it enters the aquifer and any half decent filtration system will remove those fine particles like it does the fine particles of everything else.  

Water will only be a source of conflict if the environmentalist have their way and I hope humanity as a collective minus the environmentalist will be smart enough to completely and utterly ignore them.  There is a finite amount of water on this planet and a extremely small percentage of it is fresh water and a even smaller percentage of that is usable.  Luckily there is an easy solution to this entire problem that would solve multiple problems, including reducing CO2 and saving the environment, but ironically the environmentalist fight tooth and nail to block it at all cost.  The solution to the fresh water problem, and many other problems such as energy and pollution, is nuclear power which the environmentalist hate with a passion.  Besides from producing massive amounts of power, nuclear power plants are also extremely good at acting as desalination plants and could easily both supply the world with energy, clean water, and reduce pollution all at the same time.  The problem with environmentalist is that they find fault in literally everything, but never actually offer up any solution that works.

What clean energy is cheaper then coal, conventional coal cost $95.1 per MWh, with integrated coal-gasification combined cycle its $115.7, and with carbon capture and storage the cost is $144.4 per MWh.  Natural gas is anywhere from $75.1 per MWh for conventional combined cycle to $141.5 per MWh for conventional combustion turbine with other options being in various price between the two.  Hydro only cost $83.5 per MWh but sadly there are no more damnable rivers left in America to produce more electricity.  There is nuclear with $95.2 per MWh but environmentalist hate nuclear for some reason.  Always biomas but that is $100.5 per MWh and to get the same energy as coal you end up producing significantly more CO2.  Then there is solar, one of the champions of the environmentalist but it cost $125.3 per MWh and concentrated solar power cost $239.7 per MWh and the amount of land required to meet the energy needs would cover at least a third of the United States in solar panels.  But then there is the second champion of the environmentalist with wind, offshore cost $196.9 per MWh, but onshore only cost $73.6 per MWh but you have the problem of the wind doesn't blow constantly and more importantly doesn't really tend to blow when energy is most needed and you will end up killing a massive amount of bats.  Currently wind turbines kill between 600,000 to 900,000 bats every year and that is with a decent number of wind farms not even operating at night, if they all operated at night expect that number to drastically sky rocket.  Guess wind could work if you wouldn't mind random rolling blackouts and a explosion of mosquitoes and all the diseases that they carry.  Also wind turbines are massively subsidized by the government so that drastically depressed the cost per MWh.  Lastly there is geothermal with $47.8 per MWh but that is only viable in very select locations and environmentalist lose their minds over fracking, how long do you think it would be before they lost their minds over drilling that is much deeper and uses orders of magnitude more pressure.  I used the averages for the prices per MWh instead of the high and low cost.

Of course that doesn't go into other problems, like how using biofuels would drastically increase the cost of food as farm land would be dedicated to fuel crops instead of food or how the production of solar panels produces some of the worst industrial waste known along with producing radioactive sludge, there is a reason China is basically the world's only producer of solar panels and its not because they have some expertise no other country has but its because China is the only country with lax enough environmental regulations that allows solar panels to be made at a cost effective price. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato
47 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

Normally I don't try to go after the source but in this case Appalachian Voices is far from a non biased source of this matter

Do you have a non-biased source?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther
19 hours ago, Kismit said:

And I don't know about you, but I do find the fact that a world leader of any kind tells his people which news source to watch, concerning.

We don't need President Trump to tell us. We already know that the regressive media is dishonest.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.